glad2bhere said:
I think I understand what you are saying, Rich, but there is another factor that is not being talked about here.
The original question was about people in general and I must concur that people are basically selfish in deference to their own survival. This doesn't make them bad or awful. People will do some pretty ugly things to stay alive or survive terrible conditions. The wonderful thing is that people also have the ability to transcend their human nature and come out of the best parts of themselves when they choose too. But that is a choice, not a natural part of their nature.
As I said when I started I think there is another thing being over-looked here. Supposing for a inute that we are "hard-wired" to think of ourselves first. And supposing for a minute that we are capable of making that choice. One thing that is being forgotten is the kind of acculturation ("scripting") that a person gets which can either work for or against the situation. What makes me think of this are the number of abuse cases I have worked with. Often times its not a matter of low self-esteem, but rather the inbred belief (usually from a childhood living in a house of similar dynamics) which disposes a person towards thinking this is the way things are suppose to be. And when things are NOT that way the person feels "abnormal". I know it sounds strange but sometimes taking a person out of an abusive situation causes them to actually feel "strange" like something is suddenly not right and they have to get back to that abusive situation to feel normal. This same thing can happen if you start dealing with people who have been raised since childhood to only think of themselves, feel negative about certain people or situations, or subscribe to very narrow or parochial definitions of social responsibility. All of these will cause a person to tend to follow his basic instincts toward survival and not to act in some novel fashion for the greater good of someone else. FWIW.
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Bruce,
I am confused with you stating that it is no low self esteem, yet it is inbred condidtioning from thier life they were raised from. Maybe it is my definition, yet I think the source of the low self esteem could be the way they were raised. I agree with that. Yet it is a low self esteem of themselves compared to a "Normal" healthy human.
As to subsribing to "very narrow or parochial definitions of social responsibility" I agree that socialization does deal with it, If you are a young Greek woman or HIspanic women and travel abroad, the people of their culture will insult them and tell them they are "Easy" and imply they are having sex at a real young age, even if they are not. Why because these cultures believe that all American women as easy.
Some of the American Indians had socialization as well. If a child was born with a deformity that would cause the tribe a hardship, it fell to the oldest male child, not gone through the rights of manhood, who was not in the immediate family, to steal the child and kill it, either through strangulation or drowning or , ..., . The Child could not be punished if caught, and it was for the best of the society that the resources not be wasted on a non functioning unit of said society. Now given today's technology and our societies capabilities we are able to not only keep them alive, many become productive members of society.
So cultures will circumcize the males at an age. Others do it at birth, some culture circumcize women. There are many arguements about this. And when you make statements about one culture it amy not fit for another. And with that I agree.
Yet, in a standard normal North American (* Differences between USA and Canada are there yet, not that great *) family, I do still do not see the POWER of someone staying in a bad relationship.
Now as to selfishness, I agree that people do think of themselves. Although many people think about raising families and procreating. I know women who wanted this and were not in a relationship at the time. They had no way to express it other than to say they had a desire to raise children. Could this nto be a part of their natural make up for the continuation of the species. And hance not all about themselves?
You also mention choice and that removes us from the natural environment. I disagree. It is natural for a human to make choices. If not then onlt the strongest male would reproduce as he would be the alpha male with the power to control others, adn he would spread his genes around and prevent others from doing so by threat of violence or through violence. People would kill others just for the insults and road rage and the loss of a promotion or what have you. I contend that maybe 10,000 years ago choice might not have been a part of the natural way, yet today I contend that it is a part of the natutral human being. I would even argue that people made choices on how to survive 10,000 years ago given their conditions and situations. Yet, I will allow for the counter arguement that it is no where near as it is today. And had a reduced roll.
Best Regards
:asian:
